Was there for the Clinton interview, and handled the "dossier" for the FBI, dismissed by Mueller back in August for reasons unknown, not allowed to testify to House Committee despite repeated request, and now has been fired for unsavory texts.

I understand that rather than deal with WHAT is actually happening, it is easier to attempt to blame others for WHAT is happening. trump ordered everyone out of the room so he could privately ask Comey to drop the investigation of Flynn. Now, like the Access Hollywood that he admitted was his words, he is attempting to deny that what happened, happened. Unfortunately, his supporters will believe anything, and seem to ready to excuse anything.

"They BOTH need their own (Dedicated) Independent Special Prosecutor:•Clinton for the Email Scandal and pretty much whatever else she touched."

It has been 4 years since Hillary was last in office. What proof is there for specifically what crime do you want her investigate? Private Email servers are common. Did not Kuschner and others in the Trump already announce they used them at one time or another?

What about Kelly Anne Conway should be investigated for her repeated ethics violations using her office to make announcements supporting private matters. Yet Republicans only have 'eyes for Hillary' for all these years even though the Republicans spent millions and found nothing actionable and Comey investigated and found nothing actionable.

With Hillary out of office for 4 years, what is the time limit that she can be "investigated" still more times before the statute of limitations kicks in?

With all the FBI and Republican investigations finding nothing, what new PROOF is the basis for new investigations?

Seems to me, Trump is fighting accusations from the last year and half while in office, with Mueller finding and charging people while Hillary has been investigated with no charges found for the last four years.

The current investigations are based on whether the previous investigations where done properly - or manipulated by the Clinton's.

Since they have engaged in uncontested attempts to manipulate their Party's primaries via Debbie Wasserman; in attempts to distort the 2016 Presidential election via the Trump dossier; and the previous Justice Department investigations via Loretta Lynch...

... any reasonable person determined to assure justice would demand a deeper look at her activities now that she isn't surrounded by a protective shell of cronies. Many of her most trusted associates are suddenly creating space between themselves and the Clinton's. It will be interesting to why out why.

Whether she is ultimately accused, indicted, prosecuted and punished will depend (as always) on what the meaning of IS is.

You didn't like my "own worst enemy post" but it is true, Robert. The president's aides spent the weekend applying tourniquets to stop the bleeding from more self-inflicted wounds. Continuing a pattern, the White House took a bad story and made it worse. On Saturday, the bone spur guy tweeted this: “I had to fire General (Michael) Flynn because he lied to the Vice President and the FBI.”Legal experts said this could be used as evidence that the president was trying to obstruct justice when he allegedly asked James Comey to take it easy on Flynn and then, when he didn’t, fired him as FBI director. One of the president's lawyers then tried to step in front of the bullet, after the fact, by claiming that the post on trump's tweeter account was his, not the little handed tweeter.

You're asking the wrong person those questions. I'm no lawyer; never have been; never wanted to be; and never will be.

All I can say is this: Unless and until the statute of limitations has expired, she and anyone else in a similar situation is eligible to be investigated and reinvestigated. Outcome of said investigations should be kept private DURING same and made public (at least the overall outcomes) when concluded. Also, the investigation(s) should be unbiased and bi-partisan.

As for your question: "With all the FBI and Republican investigations finding nothing, what new PROOF is the basis for new investigations?"

All I can say is that I'm not convinced there was ever a completely unbiased and bi-partisan investigation done w/o significant political meddling and until there is, there's need for yet another.

Trump is fighting his own shadow and he knows it. His problem is that he's in over his head and for him it's finally caught up with him. Not that it shouldn't have a long time ago but better late than never.

No, I go with Noel on this one. There has to be proof of wrong doing that was overlooked or suppressed to investigate her. Just because many people dislike her, and want her prosecuted for something is not enough. Presumption of Innocence?

Presumption of innocence? You can't have it one way and then not have it apply the other way.

You should presume Clinton innocent until proven guilty. You should do the same for Trump. Similarly, this should be the presumption for all those accused of sexual impropriety who have not been tried and convicted. Those who have ADMITTED wrongdoing, well, they're impacting their own right to presumption of innocence.

But you say that there should be proof of wrong? The FBI presented proof of wrong... then the FBI suggested that a reasonable DA would not prosecute. Whether that is the FBI's right or role to weigh in on that decision is up for debate, but the FBI clearly found wrong. What was not done was taking the next step for a trial and an ultimately binding finding.

But, back to the original statement, if you want HRC presumed innocent, you should concede DT gets the same presumption, as painful as either or both may be.

No, you are comparing onions and apples. Your I'll wants a criminal investigation of Secretary Clinton. trump, Moore, Lauer, Cosby, etc, have multiple credible women charging them with sexual assault. They will never see the inside of a court, but public opinion has taken the word of the women. trump is a self-admitted sexual predator.

The FBI found no evidence that Secretary Clinton intended to provide classified material to anyone not authorized to have it. Petraeus clearly intended to do that and then lied in an attempt to cover his crime.

You seem to have no ability to do critical thinking. I will try to type slow. There was clear intent by General Petraeus to violate the law. He knowingly passed documents containing TS intelligence to his mistress who had no need to know, and was not authorized to have them. In the opinion of the FBI Secretary Clinton had no intent to provide classified documents to anyone not authorized to have them, and there was no evidence that her actions resulted in compromising the low level documents she had on her server.

You complete inability to post anything factual or meaningful on any subject is what reduces you to attacking other posters. You are a pathetic imitation of your bigoted, misogynic, bone spur, little hands hero. trump and moore, has the GOP ever been lower, can the GOP ever get lower?

"there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information." "There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail..""None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail." "..even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it." "We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account."

Earlier drafts of Comey memos indicated his classification of her actions as grossly negligent.

Gross negligence - n. carelessness which is in reckless disregard for the safety or lives of others, and is so great it appears to be a conscious violation of other people's rights to safety. It is more than simple inadvertence, but it is just shy of being intentionally evil.

Note the definition doesn't require intent. Reckless carelessness would fit within the definition.

There is a standard of what other reasonable persons would do in the same situation. She didn't meet that standard, as clearly stated. She was negligent, and grossly negligent.

So, notwithstanding your (ill-informed) statement that there was no evidence that her actions resulted in compromising the documents she had on her server. You also suggested that her documents were low level... implying that all her emails were low level. That also is ill-informed, and actually false.

My critical thinking would lead me to conclude that based on the empirical evidence you have freely provided on a regular and continuous basis, your ability to think critically is severely impaired.

If your thinking were critical, you would be open to the contention that sometimes you're right, and sometimes you're wrong. We all are. However, I've yet to see you admit you've been wrong on anything. I'm not quite sure (actually I'm pretty sure) you belittle anyone who doesn't wholeheartedly agree with you. How sad.

In my own critical thinking, I can learn much when someone challenges my statements with logical and factual statements. It calls me to re-think and often change conclusions to fit new or more accurate info.

Please read: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/04/23/timeline-general-david-petraeus-paula-broadwell-jill-kelley/26245095/• October 2012: After an investigation, FBI agents confront Petraeus in his office. Petraeus denies sharing classified information. Nov. 9, 2012: Petraeus resigns from the CIA after President Obama is told the day before about the affair and the FBI investigation. Petraeus signs a form saying he has no classified material.• April 2013: FBI seizes eight binders of classified material in a search of Petraeus' Arlington, Va., home, where he had kept them in the unlocked drawer of a desk.• March 3, 2015: Petraeus reaches a deal with federal prosecutors to plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge for mishandling classified materials.• April 23, 2015: Petraeus pleaded guilty in federal court in Charlotte, N.C.

I don't care about what they've found out with Petraus. They're doing what they're going to do, and it's not in my hands.

You said there was no evidence against HRC. I simply provided the facts. Whether they do anything with it or about it is way out of my hands. Nobody with the DOJ is calling me and asking me what I think they should do, and I'm fine with that.

For me, there's nothing to get over.

You, however, can't seem to get over that everyone who disagrees with you is not necessarily wrong. But, as you say, get over it.

I have read it dozens of times. Comey said she should not have had a private server, but there was no evidence of a prosecutable crime. You are the one that refuses to accept reality.In Petraeus case, he committed two prosecutable crimes, (far worse than anything Secretary Clinton was accused of) but they let him plead guilty and keep his 4 Star pension because they made a judgement call that the embarrassment and loss of his position as CIA Director was enough punishment.The FBI found in the case of Secretary Clinton that there was no evidence of a prosecutable crime, full stop, end of story.

...you merely propose to the guy that the presumption of innocence should be applied equaly to all... and he responds with three successive posts to refute it.

His game is to invent a false premise and get you to help make it real by denying it. Once you argue against it - it graduates from silliness to a matter of opinion - and thus has a 50-50 chance of being true.

No, do the cops investigate everybody? No, they investigate when there is evidence that a crime has been committed. When there is none, there is no justification for an investigation. In fact, it is illegal.

Tams bixby,It is quite a thing to enroll a special counsel who can roam the countryside looking for all crimes against all people and try to break as many people as he can. The Obama democrats wanted a special counsel to continue to destroy the Constitution, looks like they got their way for now.

You don't give ANY Special Prosecutor "Carte Blanche" to investigate whatever they want wherever they want to. You give them a mandate and ensure they follow it. If it ever needs broadening then the Prosecutor needs to come back and ask for additional leeway. If they're given it then OK, else No.

"The Obama democrats wanted a special counsel to continue to destroy the Constitution, looks like they got their way for now."

Obama and cronies seem to have failed but it looks as though Trump is indeed attempting to do just that single handedly.

D robb, nice, watch your back side, perfer to travel the USA and Canada, don't travel overseas much any more.

My work is helped by my Hispanic friends so it's not work, work is when you don't enjoy what your doing. Beside this is one of five properties to visit and work, kind of chasing the best weather place.

D robb,WOW, Did you post a FAKE Message POST in your 736 post, what about your many other posts

., your IP location says you are still in the states….hmmmm --------------------736. D Robb (12/5/2017 9:56:57 AM) Message ID #294770I am in Rome. Thursday, I depart for Sicily, Sardinia, Tunisia, Algeria, and Spain. I much prefer that to mucking stalls and feeding cows, but each to his own.

I think you guys are all missing the obvious. Robb is a creation of someones imagination. He is not a real person. He is probably someone sitting in his basement with a bank of computers that ding to give him an answer whenever he needs to respond to something.

You don't use law enforcement, FBI resources to "investigate" unless there is reason to believe a crime has been committed. Only dictators like Putin use law enforcement for such purposes. I know trump thinks Putin is his Daddy and admires him greatly, but we still are democratically elected government, not a dictatorship.

Yea you're right. We ARE a democratically elected government ... for now. But if Trump keeps going the way he's going we won't be for long.

And according to what I hear (in the news), there's both sufficient debate and doubt/concern about whether or not a crime was/has been committed (WRT HRC) for the FBI to investigate. Given all that doubt/debate, that means there IS sufficient reason to believe.

I'm no expert on it so I have to go with what I see, read and hear in the news and other sources. That's exactly what I'm doing.

Tams, you don't investigate someone because you don't like her and hope that you can find something, anything illegal to prosecute. Unfortunately, that is what they did with Secretary Clinton and then tried her in the media despite finding nothing, nada, zero, nil, not any criminal acts.Now, in hopes of finding something, you want to waste more money and time?

First off, I agree "you don't investigate someone because you don't like her and hope that you can find something, anything illegal to prosecute.".

But that's not the reason I say it needs to be redone. I say that because I haven't heard or seen a fair, unbiased and bi-partisan investigation done to date. There are still far too many unanswered questions to let it die by the wayside. You have to cross all the "T's" and dot all the "I's" before it's over.

You say it's been investigated "thoroughly" but I say it hasn't been investigated in an "unbiased and bi-partisan manner". They are totally different ways to characterize what HAS been done.

And as far as "specifics" are concerned, it can't get any more specific than I have already been. Now I'm through discussing this because I'm also tired of rehashing the same old stuff which you keep bringing up.

While it's true I "Don't Like" HRC, it's NOT true I hate her. What I hate is LIARS (for reasons I'll keep to myself) and since the vast majority of politicos lie, which most definitely includes HRC, well then there ya have the reason I "Don't Like" her.

It's probably closer to being correct to say ALL politicos lie but I try to cut 'em some slack about whether or not they intentionally lie(d), at least until: (1) Proven they do it more often than not; and (2) Whether or not they do it for the benefit of "We, The People" or not, by looking at whether or not they did it primarily to benefit themselves or not.

In HRC's case, she does it to benefit herself and "the Slickster" and to hell with "We, The People" so she gets no slack at all.

Tams, when trump is out of office he will be out of mind. He wasn't important to me before he became president and he will be even less important to me when he no longer is. (The sooner that happens, the better.) Your relationship with Secretary Clinton is different. She was a great Senator for NYS. She has been out of office for a while. She will probably never be in a public office. Why can't you let it go?

At the rate that Mueller is going he will be lucky to get two more years. He sure as hell is not going to get elected to another term. There were a lot of people who couldn't bring themselves to vote for Secretary Clinton, and they are regretting their decision now. They won't miss their next chance to vote against the bone spur guy.

In the real world, the tax plan is progressing, Obamacare is eroding, the personality of government is changing, Contractors for the wall have been approved, the Supreme Court has green-lighted the immigration ban, thousands of regulations have been reversed, trade deals are being re-negotiated, the economy is better, the military is being rebuilt... etc., etc., etc.

... small wonder you wish to live in a dream world. It's the onlyone you have left.

Who appointed you as the ultimate judge of who was a great office holder and who was not (whether its presidency, senate, house, court, or whatever)?

Why don't you say that you believe she was a great senator? That leaves it as an IMO statement that is easily understood and accepted?

If everyone is his or her own judge of right and wrong, good and bad, etc., then how will we, as a people comprised of whatever the plural version of he and she might be, ever discern a community standard by which we can all live, agree, and be governed?

She was my senator. She was great for NYS and me. That is my opinion based on my experience and standards. Clear enough? Provide me some factual reasons why I shouldn't hold the opinion I do. You are the one with the problem. Not me.

There's no reason why you should be denied your right to your opinion. I even support your right to your opinion.

It's when you imply, by your sweeping statements, that your opinion is empirical fact. That's different.

That said, you even have the right to state your opinion in a manner that suggests that the viewpoint is correct and should be accepted as universal truth. However, when you do, you should never be surprised if someone who disagrees, does so with the same fervor that you use when you state your opinions.

You are the one with the problem. Not me.

If you want to play Pee Wee Herman with me, I can do this all day. Make sure you eat your Wheaties, Cheerios, spinach and take your pills. I know you are, but what am I?

One day, some time ago I looked up Sen Clintons' Congressional record...she successfully sponsored 10-12 bills that renamed federal property, mostly post offices, another was very compelling, recertifying a watershed in upstate..

So basically, it was housekeeping bills

Please tell us, pray tell Mr. Robb what she did for you? Other than being a partisan Liberal????

Is there a roadway or post office named in your honor we don't know about?

P.S. "uncle Ted' was my Senator for many years, recently his family, along with a Koch brother put the nail in the coffin on Cape Wind via lawsuits. It was Teddy's last fight......

WRT your second sentence/statement (and this is the last I'll say about it) ... What she did (during her tenure as Sec'y of State) was anything but in the People's interest (Email Server - definitely so; Benghazi - ???? We'll see if they ever do an unbiased and bi-partisan investigation into it).

Trump wants to step in and make Jerusalem the capital of Israel where Congress has already said the American Embassy would be located.

Bannon is campaigning for Moore. Bannon calls Moore's election a religious war where Alabama values will be taken to Washington. So why do you need to be concerned? Perhaps I don't want to follow 'Alabama values' on a NATIONAL LEVEL.

Thank-you Republicans for selling out to Bannon and supporting child molester be on the ticket to the Senate.

Trump wants to step in and make Jerusalem the capital of Israel where Congress has already said the American Embassy would be located.

Noel, your ignorance is showing again. The president of the United States does not determine what city is the capital of any sovereign country. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel because that is what the people of Israel determined almost 70 years ago.

Trump simply formally acknowledged what Congress said 20 years ago, that the United States recognizes that Israel says it's capital is Jerusalem.

Regardless of whether they do or not, then how much new/more bloodshed have his actions caused?

However much occurs, if any, will be on HIS head and hands and regardless of that, I suspect he has done the actual Mideast Peace Process no favors, but I could be wrong. Only time will tell the tale. I just hope he doesn't get us into yet another war: NK looming and now the ME????? Given "Old BoneSpur" never wore "the uniform" he leaves quite a bit to be desired when it comes to Int'l Relations and Military Conflicts. The vast majority of what he has to offer comes from a foul wind in his wake.

The Mideast Peace Process is certainly no easy nut to crack and I'm also no expert on it as that arena is above my paygrade, but at least I'm aware of my limitations. He hasn't got the first clue.

If Chicago wanted peace it would happen? But it doesn't so does that make the Arab world as bad as Chicago or is there another factor occurring?

If American politics wanted peace or even civility, it would happen? But it doesn't so does that make the Arab world as bad as American politics or is American politics as bad as the Arab world or are there other factors occurring?

If America wanted to rebuild its infrastructure it would happen but it doesn't so why does that happen? Does America like to spend billions and trillions more on war than helping to rebuild from hurricanes or from giving the rich tax cuts instead of health care for the needy?

M Bathurst-Was that peace platter what others were willing to give to get peace or was that peace platter what the Palestinians needed before peace was possible?

Your last question is simply an attempt to misdirect the discussion. You seem to have excess time on your hands - do the research on the offers given to them; which they have rejected - and look for what they have requested. Reasonable to you?

While it may sound as if I'm disagreeing, I'm really not. I just don't particularly care for the damn politicos and their eternal "Keep trying the same solution to a given problem and expecting a different solution" and we both know what that is the definition of.

So while I don't care for Trump or his modus operandi, I suspect it may turn out to be better than what's been going on before. I'll hunker down in my foxhole and wait to see what happens.

Trump talked to Taiwan after the election in ignorance or defiance to America's ONE CHINA policy.

"Noel, your ignorance is showing again. The president of the United States does not determine what city is the capital of any sovereign country. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel because that is what the people of Israel determined almost 70 years ago."

Domenick - YOUR IGNORANCE is showing. Just because a nation decides anything means nothing if the more powerful nations do not recognize the legitimacy of those decisions.

For years, DIPLOMACY mandated a policy by the US of not recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital so that peace in the Middle East might be attained.

For years, REALITY dictated a ONE CHINA policy by the US towards recognizing Taiwan now that mainland China, nuclear China made defending Taiwan against mainland China too expensive and dangerous.

The US does not recognize mainland China's claims of sovereignty in the South China sea regardless of what mainland China claims or has determined.

So pounce away, twist and attack the messenger if you wish, I find such delusions as yours amusing were it not leading this nation to defeat and oblivion.

No, it is your ignorance showing. Under international law, Israel has no claim to the occupied territories, including Jerusalem. Neither the UN nor the EU nor most of the rest of the world recognizes Israel's claim. It is all supposed to be negotiated as part of a land for peace deal with the Arab nation's and Palestinians. No good will come of it, except to further isolate and marginalize both the US and Israel.

"Noel, your ignorance is showing again. The president of the United States does not determine what city is the capital of any sovereign country. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel because that is what the people of Israel determined almost 70 years ago."

Funny how you completely ignore the fact that the Palestinians determined Jerusalem was the capital of their nation.

Under the Constitution, the President has exclusive authority to recognize foreign sovereignty over territory.

Under that authority, President Clinton refused to sign the Jerusalem Embassy Act passed by Congress in 1995. Donald Trump is now President, and that authority is entirely his.

Jerusalem is not the Capitol of Palestine, it is the Capitol of Israel... in which the tongue-in-cheek State of Palestine and the Jewish occupied territories co-exist.

It is a political act designed to signal that the idea of a separate Palestinian State is no longer on the table. Rightfully so... since it never succeeded in moving the Arabs to agree to a just resolution in the area. Why should they? America, Israel and others are paying all of their bills.

Robert -"Under the Constitution, the President has exclusive authority to recognize foreign sovereignty over territory."

Then I hope you have faith in Trump's instincts when he pisses Mainland China off by having conversations and recognizing Taiwan.

The President also has the ability to denounce ultra right white supremacy and racism, something he was reluctant to do in Charlotte.

Russia, China, France, Germany, Turkey and other nations argued against Trump's EXCLUSIVE AUTHORITY decision but then in this troubled time who needs the other powerful powers support in putting out terrorism?

Fools go where angels fear to tread. Trump angers and alienates OUR allies, antagonizes OUR enemies and generally feels entitled to do just what-ever he feels like because his life of entitlement and ignorance of how the national and international political world operates.

"It is a political act designed to signal that the idea of a separate Palestinian State is no longer on the table. Rightfully so"

YOUR OPINION. Wonder what Tillerson thinks. Other world leaders give this political act an "F".

How will the Israelis react and how will American civilians react when 'reaction' to this stupid political act sparks increased violence?

So under Trump America faces a possible nuclear war which only China can prevent from North Korea and an eruption of violence in the oil rich Middle East which is in our trust of Netanyahu and his political agenda in Israel.

I thought it was 'America first' not 'America becoming the bit$h of the crazies in this world.

The last time I looked there is not nor has there ever been a "nation" of Palestine. The modern "Palestine" is a figment of the demented and murderous mind of one Yassir Arafat, an Egyptian who was expelled from his native land for incitement to violence. Israel took Jerusalem in its entirety via force of arms from Jordan during the 67 War. The Islamists had chosen to use many of the Jewish and Christian Holy sites as urinals and worse.

The President is doing what was promised by Boy Clinton in the recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capitol, and followed by GWB, and Barry Soetoro who all did nothing. Trump is spot on correct. An analogy: would the US have its Embassy to the UK in Nottingham or Liverpool when the national capitol is London? Having the USEMB to Israel in Tel Aviv merely conveniences the State Dept party goers who love the TA night life but will actually be in more austere surrounding in Jerusalem. And by the way, Jerusalem is not mentioned , even once, In the Koran. So much for it being the "4th Holiest City" to that cult that beheads c/o the Prophet on the White Horse.

Perhaps in your alternative facts universe, but not in the real world. The best solution would be to make Jerusalem and open city as part of a peace treaty. This illegal and unilateral action will please right wing nuts, especially Evangelicals who believe it is necessary for the end times. American Jews don't support it or Netanyahu.It just makes the US more unimportant and marginalized

No, no one ever accused her of transmitting documents. They found some documents on her server. General Petraeus physically and deliberately handed TS documents to someone he knew was not cleared to have them, and then lied about it to the FBI. He got a slap on the wrist. No one has ever accused Secretary Clinton of doing either.

No, the explanation was simple enough. They we're unclassified docs sent to his wife who asked her husband to download them so she could review them. It was all a tempest in a teacup. They found nothing wrong in regards to Benghazi so they had to try to make something out of the server so now they are desperately trying to find something...

Thomas C,Mueller and Strzok are undermining the credibility of law enforcement across the nation. Then we have Andrew Weissman who was general counsel to Mueller when he was FBI Director and was close to James Comey. Weissman has praised Sally Yates for defying a lawful executive immigration order by President Trump and maxed out on his donations to the Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton campaigns. The President is up against this out of control crooked investigation team.

Mr. Bixby, you may be correct. However, I suspect you will not be. Your hatred for Pres. Trump is noted. However, it is the vocal minority that is doing most of the yelling.

Regulations are being deleted - correctly. Foreign issues are being dealt with; not always the most elegantly. However, today's decision regarding the capital of Israel is long overdue. The federal courts are getting competent judges. The ACA is slowing being corrected. The markets are soaring. And, if the tax reform comes to be; in particular the corporate provisions - Katy bare the door for the economy.

You may find him distasteful; but, his instincts are solid in most cases. No one is perfect (except for God Robb). Those instincts, contrary to the likes of Robb, Meyer, T and Patricia; are positive for the person known as John Q Public.

And, I think the public is beginning to see the stink that Mr. Mueller and his clan have brought to the FBI and DOJ. AG Sessions needs to start doing his job; or, resign (if the kitchen it too hot for him - get the ef out). I was of the opinion that I thought he would be good at his job. He is proving me wrong on a daily basis.

History will not be kind to Mr. Big Ears and his tribe. However, I think you are wrong in regards to Pres. Trump. History will be tough on him; but, overall, he will come out as a breath of fresh air after 50+ years of Democrats, Socialism, Communism and Progressivism tainting the country.

"You may find him distasteful; but, his instincts are solid in most cases. No one is perfect (except for God Robb). Those instincts, contrary to the likes of Robb, Meyer, T and Patricia; are positive for the person known as John Q Public."

1. So allocating money for Trump's wall is positive for john Q Public but not getting hurricane aid to Puerto Rico? Good instincts or self gratification to keep HIS Campaign promises?

2. Recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel in defiance of long standing American and international policy is positive for john Q Public when such might inflame a war in the Middle East? Good instincts or self gratification to keep HIS Campaign promises?

3. Failing to denounce neo-nazis, white supremacists, Putin's Russia while throwing verbal grenades without proof that 3 million illegals voted for Hillary is good for John Q Public when his TWITTER-Tantrumsdivide the nation and AMERICAN values are destroyed? Good instincts or the deranged delusions of a paranoid idiot?

4. Tax cuts for the rich when the nation faces devastating wild fires and hurricanes and heroine epidemics and infrastructure deterioration and needs money to address these issues. Good instincts or the deranged delusions of a paranoid idiot?

Bathurst, your views are the same as the J Paul Getty's and other robber barons of the late 19th century when this country was run not be "we the people" but the special privileged class.

That "government employee" is the #2 FBI counterintelligence executive manager (Deputy Assistant Director - CI) and a Senior Executive Service person which is equivalent to a two star flag officer. He has a whole slew of issues on the table to include lack of candor (a firing offense), adultery, moral turpitude, not to mention the probability he is one of the leakers AND may have dummied up probable cause to obtain a FISA under false pretenses. He, and Andrew McCabe (the FBI #2) are lashed up at the cajones with a chain of intrigue and corrupt and malicious behavior. It fit the then Lynch-DoJ and Comey-FBI model under High Domo Barack very well, don't you think?

We obviously differ about the status of my suspicions about Old Cheesface etc but as you I believe noted, time will tell the tale.

While I don't necessarily disagree w/ your assessment of the current status of federalism, I do disagree about the methodology being implemented. Yes, I do "find him distasteful" but I disagree about the soundness of his instincts. IMO they're (his instincts) unstable at the best of times in most cases, except for as they reflect upon his own personal interests.

We most certainly disagree where Mueller is concerned. While I too wish it weren't necessary to have him doing his job, I also find it (him doing his job) a most necessary evil. Would that it weren't necessary. WRT Sessions, I agree. He DOES need to "Take a Hike!"

Not quite sure who you are referring to when you talk about "Mr. Big Ears and his tribe". Is that your colloquialism for Old Cheesface???

True enough about history and it's ultimate judgment of DJT but that judgement, harsh or otherwise, is, and will be, of his own doing. While I've never failed to acknowledge that many of the things DJT was saying needed to be done did in fact need to be done, I have never once acknowledged him as the one who needed to do them.

The reasons for my dislike of Old Cheesface are far too numerous and far too onerous to list but leave it to say: No matter what outcome survives his Presidency, I will never, repeat never, consider him "qualified" to have held the office save for the fact he was duly elected (the legitimacy of said election to be determined by other than me but in and by an unbiased and bi-partisan manner).

What exactly is Mr. Mueller's job? We were told to investigate "collusion" between the Trump campaign and the Russian government.

First, special prosecutors are a major waste of time and money. I have never been a fan. You cannot give a group of folks a bunch of money and power; tell them go prove something. Collusion is not a crime; so we have a SP investigating a non-crime. He loaded his team with very biased individuals. And, they have found nothing regarding collusion and the campaign that involved the Trump organization. But, they have found some interesting interactions between the Russians and Democrats. And, the crimes they have charged are (i) a process crime that is absolutely silly - Flynn and (ii) economic activity prior to the accused being involved with the Trump organization Watch out Mr. Bixby, I am sure Mr. Mueller could squeeze a ham sandwich out of you if he wanted. Since we have a SP, let name another one - investigate Mr. Mueller, Ms. Clinton and the closing days of the Big Ears Administration (know who I am referring to now).

You can disagree with my opinions; that is your right. However, history will be much kinder to Pres. Trump than you will like.

"I have never once acknowledged him as the one who needed to do them." Mr. Bixby, if not him - who - anyone on the Left -BS / anyone on the Right - not likely - they are all suffering from Stockholm Syndrome from the bullying of the Left and the MSM.

Your consideration of his qualifications are not relevant; he met the qualifications set out by the Constitution; then he was able to collect sufficient number of Electoral votes to win. So, there are plenty of folks that disagree with you.

But, to play the qualifications game for awhile - other than the Constitutional ones - what qualifications did Big Ears have? I would set forth that of the two, Mr. Trump brought more to the table than Big Ears (an effing communist as far as I am concerned). And, on a tangent, I find it interesting that the Left (like the Right) are not real fans of Nazis - the Left loves communists - even the 100 million dead ones over the past 100 years.

Sorry, you won't like this; but, there is little difference between your views and Mr. Robb's. BFF.

The most apparent and trubling aspect, to me at any rate, of this most politically inspired impeachment investigation are the roles of two former FBI Directors, one as a prosecutor (should be recast as "Special Persecutor") and the other (his successor) as a leaker and quisling; a former FBI Chief of Staff named Andrew Weissmann who openly supports a mutineer former Acting AG named Sally Yates, the current FBI Deputy Director and proven leaker Andrew McCabe, and current FBI Deputy Assistant Director for Counterintelligence, cocksman, adulterer and anti-Trumper Peter Strzok.

The FBI and DOJ are at this point beneath any bar of confidence or respectability. It pains me to see those dedicated Special Agents who toil in that organization doing the real work away from politics smeared and tainted by the corrupt and scurrilous behavior of High Bureau Officials and former Directors who damaged the Bureaus's brand in a wholesale manner. John Edgar Hoover has to be spinning in his grave.

This is not meant as a challenge; but, rather to the perceptions regarding Mr. Hoover's time as the head of the FBI. The general public has the perception that Mr. Hoover abused his power (the unusual behaviors are of no relevance to me).

When it comes to Mr. Mueller, Mr. Comey, Ms. Lynch, Mr. Holder, Mr. McCabe and many others currently or recently departed official from the FBI and DOJ, there is no perception regarding the abuse of power and corruption - it is quite evident. However, nothing will come of it because of politics - the Right fears mythological boogeymen.

This is the core of my comment. The Left actively supports this level of corruption and bad acts to keep power.